Quote:
Originally posted by ATIRAGEPRO
OS X is faster than windows XP
|
Blanket statement, not provable.
Quote:
|
PowerPC chips are better than Intels!
|
Define 'better'
Quote:
|
Even if the G5 never hit the 3ghz mark yet, It's still better than a x86 CPU that even with 3ghz, still runs slow after only a few short days of using it.
|
If a CPU starts running slower after a few days, it's almost always software-related, not CPU architecture-related.
Quote:
|
If you think OS X is soo slow, I'd like to see you try a PPC version of any Linux distro the same age, and then tell me which one is faster!
|
You can almost always make Linux run faster than a proprietary operating system. Where does that factcome from?
Quote:
|
If you don't like Mac, that's your business, but that dosn't mean anythings wrong with it.
|
I know you weren't talking to me, but I'll answer anyway. I happen to like Mac OS X a lot, but it's not without its flaws. I can think of plenty of things that are "wrong" with pretty much any operating system I've used.
Quote:
Although, there probably is something wrong with them now. :mad: Instead of them trying to recieve the mark of the beast, (x8666  ) they should have just got another company to make the PowerPC. Maybe Via Technologies or Sony. Anything but IBM or Intel.
|
Why are you so set against the x86 architecture? The problem with getting another company to make the PowerPC is that you're making a CPU for a niche market. Motorola/Freescale already sells their G4s to most of the PowerPC customers that don't use them for desktops (Car CPUs are a much bigger market than Apple was for them for example), and IBM has the game console market. Apple's tiny Mac market just isn't enough to support the development of an entire CPU platform.
Quote:
Originally posted by horndude
OS X uses gcc -Os instead of gcc -O3 or O2
|
Do you know if they're still doing that for the x86 version?